India’s stance contradicts their stand on Maoist movement in Nepal

Yuba Raj Koirala

A unique fellow indeed, who apart from academic activities, takes delight in cooking, gardening, prayers, meditation and prefers long solitary walks instead of wasting time for nothing. This doesn’t mean that he not a social person. He is in effect a social person.

When we approached this expert on International relations for an exclusive interview on current national and international issues at his residence this week, he welcomed us with a Hindi poem he has just accomplished. Writing poems in Nepali, English and Hindi he then tries to tune them in his flute, often staying late up nights. He graduated in international Relations from Aberystwyth, United Kingdom, some four years ago and has been a regular contributor to this newspaper.

Mr. Yuba Raj Koirala then should not be a new name for the regular readers of this newspaper. His political analyses on contemporary national and international events have drawn the attention of Nepali academia living here and abroad as well. EDITOR

TGQ1: Talks on conflict resolution is a buzzword now. Scores of seminars and workshops are being held. The conflict as such remains intact. What say you?

Mr. Koirala: White Man’s burden, Mr. Upadhyaya. They tend to think that their garbage also needs to be globalized and who fail to appreciate the fact that conflicts are specific to cultural context. Firstly, we need to understand who we are and what is our family and societal make up that determines our behaviors. By doing this we can easily discern the patterns that give rise to such conflicts and hence the tools to solve them. In our own case, while we tend to ascribe to Ram, Krishna and Buddha’s footsteps and on the other hand our academics are busying themselves in interpreting those teaching as hostile and incompatible with the Western believe and systems which now dictate much of the third world population’s personal feeling and their mood of indigenous conflict managing processes. That is why conflicts are rising everyday in our part of the world. In the meantime, I wish to take note of what Mr. Shrish Rana told you in your previous columns that the available indigenous tools of the country could well be unutilized to address the malaise that grip the local commune.

TGQ2: Silguri and now Lucknow, India brings Prachanda close to UML leader Madhav Nepal at times. Do you see any meaning in between the lines?

Mr. Koirala: The India factor seems to be often propping up in this line of discussion. Given India’s stance on the Maoist issue following their declaration of their acts as "terrorism" and their denial to have any knowledge of such meetings being taken place in the Indian soil contradicts their stand as how does Indian establishment actually view the Maoist movement in Nepal. This has largely confused the public opinion here. However, we should not blow the issue out of all proportion just because the meeting took place in Indian soil. What is important for us is whether the meetings between these leaders have been fruitful in producing some sorts of solution to the ongoing problem that grips the nation at present. We have suffered enough and it is time that the monarch, the Maoist, and the political parties minimized their differences and acted in a manner that help rebuild a peaceful, prosperous and healthy Nepal. That is all I would say.

TGQ3: The king acquires a posture, which he should have not, say Nepali academics. Is his silence justifiable? In effect, what he should do or should have done?

Mr. Koirala: The underlying assumption of his philosophic " life is so short and there is very little time you can actually do things for your country" makes it clear where and what the monarch stands for. He is merely acting like a referee with references to plenty of national characteristics, who sees that the ball (political parties) is not hitting the post (nation’s objectives). He can still do a lot for the people and for the nation by simply adhering to the foot steps of his late brother King Birendra who always believed in popular consensus and that is why he will always be remembered. It’s time that the Monarch acted like glue in binding the nation together and seeing his people lauding his contribution in uniting the already disintegrated nation together. Albeit the Maoists as well.

TGQ4: Pakistani Ambassador in Nepal says if the Muslims become increasingly the targets of the West, might invite clash of civilizations. Do you see any mechanism that can bridge the increasing gap in between the two civilizations developed specially 9/11?

Mr. Koirala: Perhaps, we should do well to draw upon the philosophy and varied cultural traditions of our times to evolve a universal concept of peace and security. This only will solve the problem.

TGQ5. SAARC is generally classified to be a poor men’s club. How you rate its performance since its inception in the mid 80s?

Mr. Koirala: I would not normally agree with such assumption that it should be seen as poor men’s club. However, the problem with SAARC is that it has remained all along entangled over the Indo-Pak conflict over Kashmir, which has undermined other important issues of regional cooperation. Unless those two countries patch up their differences SAARC is as good as no SAARC.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Letter | Past